Been down the pub tonight and while chatting between drinks as you do, a man comes through the door - I swear the bloke was 6ft 10 +. He had to bend to enter the pub. I said, after a few expletives, "a decentdent from the giants of time gone by ". Well my mates truly took the gherkin - good and proper!

After they calmed down I expalined about giants once roamimg the earth thousands of years ago. Still more gherkin taking. Yeah, yeah, I know.Now, I've known of this theory for some time but my mates have never heard such bullsh!t (their words) but I explained and told them to look it up on YouTube and make your own mind up. History is littered with folklore about giants, but it's believed by most to be just that, folklore.

What gets to me however, is that whenever I mention this subject in conversation the reaction is always immediate in the dismissal of the facts - ie skeletal evidence! 'There not real' they say.

Now, we believe that dinosaurs once roamed the earth. Why? Because of the fossilised remains which can be witnessed in museums in every corner of the globe. They are 'real' right? These giant (human) skeletons are also on display in various museums worldwide but the fanfare and promotion surronding them is very much subdude. Why is this I wonder?

If these giants theories were the work of some nutjob then yes, I would be just like the rest of the sceptics and dissmiss it out of hand. But how do you account for the bones? Surely it's proof that giants once existed. Heck, they even taught us about giants in school. Remember David And Goliath? Jack the Giant Killer? These stories had to come from somewhere. It is thought that from the study of ancient texts and scrolls that these giants were very intelligent but also a bloodthirsty race and wouldn't hesitate to kill other humans for food.

Not trying to ram it down your throats as gospel or anything but study the facts and make up your own minds.

David and Goliath and Jack and the Beanstalk may be taught in school but not in terms of history.

Anyway, it depends on how tall someone has to be to be called a giant. I've seen a few people with giantism (the disease). No reason why that couldn't produce a big dude in the past. Someone at 7 foot is pretty big, and I'm 6"3.

If you look in the Guinness Book of Records about the tallest recorded humans in history, you will notice that 90 - 95% of them have one of two things in common (or both):Acromegaly and pituitary gland damage/disorder (acromegaly is itself a pituitary gland disorder but has very different effects).

That these disorders existed throughout history is just as likely as any other disease or disorder.

If you combine an accelerated rate of growth or mass for specific individuals with the fact that humans used to be a lot shorter throughout history, also given the propensity for humans to concoct stories and legends to explain natural phenomena, I think the explanation is pretty apparent.

That there may be skeletons of large humanoids points to nothing other than there may have been individuals who had suffered from a pituitary gland disorder in the past.

Also not forgetting that differences between races and nations used to be a lot more pronounced (or perceived that way). For example, after hundreds of years of isolationism by both China and Japan, can you imagine what their reactions would have been to much taller, broader, more heavily built Europeans?

Reference GIANTS, I'm sure there's always been big people around. Just as there's small people, but sounds like your talking about a whole race of giants. If there had been, where did they go

Well, where did the dinosaurs go? Yet we all aknowledge that they existed without even questioning it because of the bones found. Same thing with these huge skeletons found all over the world but we wont except that they once roamed the earth.

Guys just listen the the first link I posted, listen over a few days if you want but just listen to what the author Steve Quayle has to say. Not convinced? Fine. But don't be so quick to judge before you've heard the evidence.

Skeletal remains of 7 - 10 feet? Possibly. 20 - 30 feet? Nonsense. Heights like that are beyond the realms of human physiology. All animals bigger than humans on earth have very different bone and muscle structures for a reason. The closest comparison could be Gorillas, who are much larger, but spend most of their time on all fours with a massively denser musculature.

Robert Wadlow, the largest recorded human at 8'11" at the time of his death, spent most of his life in very poor health. He couldn't walk very well, couldn't stand up straight and was eventually killed by a septic blister on his ankle. His body simply couldn't cope. It's the same way with a lot of people with heights beyond 7 foot. Postural difficulties, immune system deficiencies, joint and muscle problems etc...

Until I see such a massive skeleton stood in front of me in a reputable museum I shall remain unconvinced.

Skeletal remains of 7 - 10 feet? Possibly. 20 - 30 feet? Nonsense. Heights like that are beyond the realms of human physiology. All animals bigger than humans on earth have very different bone and muscle structures for a reason. The closest comparison could be Gorillas, who are much larger, but spend most of their time on all fours with a massively denser musculature.

Robert Wadlow, the largest recorded human at 8'11" at the time of his death, spent most of his life in very poor health. He couldn't walk very well, couldn't stand up straight and was eventually killed by a septic blister on his ankle. His body simply couldn't cope. It's the same way with a lot of people with heights beyond 7 foot. Postural difficulties, immune system deficiencies, joint and muscle problems etc...

Until I see such a massive skeleton stood in front of me in a reputable museum I shall remain unconvinced.

Oh c'mon! That's a lame expalnation.

On your last parragraph, well, the powers that be don't want you to know. If you listened more into the video it would be explained to you. But I fear you won't listen that far.

i genuinely do not mean any offence to you mr, or indeed mrs, moose22, but this does appear to be a pile of balls.

any "skeletal proof" must either be either faked, or just as likely, miss attributed remains of other creatures.

anyone can make rather convincing arguments for all sorts of random conspiracy type theories by either misinterpreting the evidence at hand, or by actively, maliciously if you will, twisting it to their own ends. those ends normally either being mislead people to get attention, or simply having certain mental issues.

as regards the prevalence of "giants" within folk lore, as far as i see it surely there are three main reasons for that, firstly and most simply, you do sometimes get some huge people. people over 6ft 6in, being out of the ordinary are remembered, the stories of them are exaggerated over time, until it's told of some sort of 20ft almost mystical creature.

secondly, some races, particularly back in history when the human race was far more disparate, people from different areas would have exhibited differing height ranges(because of things like climate, health and diet differences), so when a group of peoples averaging 6 inches or so taller than another interact with the shorter they would seem like other worldly giants. again over time this gets exaggerated.

the last is more from a sociopolitical perspective. such as the story of david and goliath.

david was leader of, essentially, an invading peoples. goliath was representative of the resident population who, understandably, tried to fight against this invading force. to speak of having to fight against this "giant" force is simply propaganda, to try to shine the best light on what happened, to gain the moral high ground, to make out that david and his peoples were little underdogs who couldn't possibly have been in the wrong and therefore were morally obliged to fight against this "giant" foe.

so peoples create "giant" myths to illustrate their justness, how they've been subjugated, but also to show how strong they are. again, time contorts the truth.

with respect to your comparison with our "belief" in dinosaurs, remember there aren't just "some" examples of dinosaurs, there are literally millions of dinosaur skeletal remains. incidentally we know exactly where they went, they died out, largely due to a mass extinction event, the extensive fossil records prove this.

another example of a common myth, for which there was skeletal "proof" is that of the cyclopes. the skeletal remains of cyclopes' were actually elephant skulls. they have a rather distinct central nasal cavity which had been mistaken for an eye socket by peoples who had never encountered elephants, well, other than their fossil remains.

obviously i could myself be talking utter balls, we'd need a time and space machine to definitively prove or disprove either position. however the position that "giants" as a distinct race have ever existed as you're hypothesizing does seem rather untenable, much as even if the CIA did it, there most certainly was no 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll.

anyway, clearly you can believe what ever you want to believe. i would however(not meaning to sound patronising) offer one bit of advice, use logical reasoning to question things. as i said earlier, people can twist pretty much anything to try to prove whatever point they wish to argue, and too many people do that from a position of self gain, just look at the whole da vinci code nonsense.

I listened to a bit of the first video, and the explanation for why mainstream science does not want to look into the existence of giants is really hard to believe, to say the least. They already have to deal with issues of religion in many ways, so why would that put them off when it comes to giants and the mention of giants in the bible? And seeing as it is not strange to see long-standing theories in science proven false, why would the possibility of "throwing off" the theory of evolution scare any scientist? And Quayle's the "supernatural aspect really scares them big time" comment? It made me chuckle.

I think a race of giants, with the sort of strength Quayle describes, would've been the apex predators of the planet, so how is it that people much smaller and much weaker became the top of the chain if humans and giants lived at the same time?

_________________"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."Jean-Pierre Sarti

anyway, clearly you can believe what ever you want to believe. i would however(not meaning to sound patronising) offer one bit of advice, use logical reasoning to question things. as i said earlier, people can twist pretty much anything to try to prove whatever point they wish to argue, and too many people do that from a position of self gain, just look at the whole da vinci code nonsense.

Logical reasoning is the evidence of huge skeletons. Not enough though is it?

I listened to a bit of the first video, and the explanation for why mainstream science does not want to look into the existence of giants is really hard to believe, to say the least. They already have to deal with issues of religion in many ways, so why would that put them off when it comes to giants and the mention of giants in the bible? And seeing as it is not strange to see long-standing theories in science proven false, why would the possibility of "throwing off" the theory of evolution scare any scientist? And Quayle's the "supernatural aspect really scares them big time" comment? It made me chuckle.

I think a race of giants, with the sort of strength Quayle describes, would've been the apex predators of the planet, so how is it that people much smaller and much weaker became the top of the chain if humans and giants lived at the same time?

Well no one knows the answer to that question, but, I ask you this: how did the ancient Egyptians die out? A race which judging by the evidence left behind were a race far superior to any that ever lived - yet....?

What I'm trying to say is things happened throughout history which are unexplained. Or, science has come up with a theory which is taken as gospel only because no one else has come up with a better explanation of the said event.

Physical evidence in my eyes though is the one that's hard to disprove.

All the photos of giant human skeletons I found were photoshopped. I mean I can't say for sure, maybe they really did exist and god/aliens/illuminati or whatever wiped out all the proof, but unless something tangible shows up I'll have to go for the more likely explanation of giants being just exaggerated stories.

I listened to a bit of the first video, and the explanation for why mainstream science does not want to look into the existence of giants is really hard to believe, to say the least. They already have to deal with issues of religion in many ways, so why would that put them off when it comes to giants and the mention of giants in the bible? And seeing as it is not strange to see long-standing theories in science proven false, why would the possibility of "throwing off" the theory of evolution scare any scientist? And Quayle's the "supernatural aspect really scares them big time" comment? It made me chuckle.

I think a race of giants, with the sort of strength Quayle describes, would've been the apex predators of the planet, so how is it that people much smaller and much weaker became the top of the chain if humans and giants lived at the same time?

Well no one knows the answer to that question, but, I ask you this: how did the ancient Egyptians die out? A race which judging by the evidence left behind were a race far superior to any that ever lived - yet....?

What I'm trying to say is things happened throughout history which are unexplained. Or, science has come up with a theory which is taken as gospel only because no one else has come up with a better explanation of the said event.

Physical evidence in my eyes though is the one that's hard to disprove.

The Ancient Egyptians never died out, they were conquered first by the Persians and were ruled for over 100 years then conquered once more by the Romans which lasted for 1000 years until eventually over time the language and religious beliefs were lost and eventually became an Islamic nation due to the spread of Islam throughout the Middle-East. The Ancient Egyptians are the same modern day Egyptians.

Recent gas exploration activity in the south east region of the Arabian desert uncovered a skeletal remains of a human of phenomenal size. This region of the Arabian desert is called the Empty Quarter, or in Arabic, 'Rab-Ul-Khalee'. The discovery was made by the Aramco Exploration team. As God states in the Quran that He had created people of phenomenal size the like of which He has not created since. These were the people of Aad where Prophet Hud was sent. They were very tall, big, and very powerful, such that they could put their arms around a tree trunk and uproot it. Later these people, who were given all the power, turned against God and the Prophet and transgressed beyond all boundaries set by God. As a result they were destroyed.

Ulema's of Saudi Arabia believe these to be the remains of the people of Aad. Saudi Military has secured the whole area and no one is allowed to enter except the ARAMCO personnel. It has been kept in secrecy, but a military helicopter took some pictures from the air and one of the pictures leaked out into the internet in Saudi Arabia. See the attachment and note the size of the two men standing in the picture in comparison to the size of the skeleton !!

thats some fella

edit: i didnt realise they were serious about this stuff. Im going to watch the rest of the video and look into this

I don't think it makes sense that thousands of years ago there would have lived giants and not any more now. You expect a giant to be strong so it would ne strange that they would have died while the small people kept on living. Still how do I know maybe my logic isn't good. During history mankind has always been growing bigger and taller thanks to better life circumstances, food etc. The real giants might need yet to come or maybe the will just always be a part of fairy tales...

Wow now I see that picture toughguy, that is interesting. Please keep us informed. That doesn't look like photoshop!

And Moose, I am dismissive because it makes no sense and I have yet to see any decent proof. I'm going to bed now, but I can't find solid proof any of these museums actually have these bones.

Humboldt's website has records for a lot of other things, but not these giant bones.I couldn't see a Ica website.The Gold Museum in Peru... I couldn't find it on the website but it didn't seem to have much. Then there's history of fakes in a museum that may or not be the one you referenced: http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/09/0109connguide.html.

I am open minded, but none of the "proof" supplied convinces me in the slightest. I believe, like several others have said, that you can see someone bigger and tell someone and before you know it the story has spread to the 50 foot woman fighting godzilla. I have yet to see any believeable and reliable proof though, until then... I don't buy it.

Logical reasoning is the evidence of huge skeletons. Not enough though is it?

i did explain the so called "evidence of huge skeletons" quite succinctly. i even gave you an example of another mythological giant creature that had skeletal "proof", yet it was no more real than these "giants".

so no, that so called "evidence" is far from enough. to all intense and purposes the earth appears flat, i mean just look out the window for evidence. okay, there's hills and stuff, but it just generally goes off horizontally. but the earth sure as hell(figuratively) is not flat. so called "evidence" is not always evidence of an accurate conclusion, particularly where the evidence is flaky to say the least. basically the "proof" is either faked, or it is misinterpreted(either by accident or actively, maliciously if you will).

another example to indicate where you possibly need to think a bit more about this is where you said...

"how did the ancient Egyptians die out? A race which judging by the evidence left behind were a race far superior to any that ever lived - yet....?"

now, the why they "died out" has been explained rather well by someone else so i'll not bother with that. my point is that you shouldn't need someone to explain why a civilization passed from history. the roman empire "died out", but the people that made it certainly didn't vanish into the ether.

i also haven't a clue where you could possibly get the idea that the ancient egyptians were "a race far superior to any that ever lived - yet". okay, they were a pretty damn clever civilization, built some huge things, had some nice jewelry, but so did many other peoples around the world. what they had that enabled them to be rather prolific on the building front was man power, and lots of it, a decent climate that allowed for artifacts to preserve through time, rather handy positioning in the world to get easy access to some impressively extensive trade routes (not that they ran the routes), a handy huge, regularly flooding river which turned the desert into perfect farm land, and maniacal leaders intent of imposing their assumed godly status upon the population.

think of other things being done around the same time, things like stonehenge. a hugely complex religious site set up to reference exactly various significant points of the year via astronomical markers. not only the physical achievement of hauling those stones across thew country, but an astounding mathematical achievement. or the earliest known sewerage system, that's attributed to a colony on some rather remote scottish island.

how could they be "superior to any [civilization] that ever lived yet" if they didn't have sewerage, didn't have planes, didn't have telephones, didn't have an all encompassing education system, didn't have digital watches? hell, they didn't even have a practical system of writing(i know they had hieroglyphics, which itself sporned the more practical coptic, but still compared to this, wonderfully simplistic, versatile, comprehensive alphabet, it was far from superior).

don't get me wrong, i think they were impressive, but to say they are superior to every other civilization ever is quite naive.

oh, and like other's have said, there'd be no point hiding such things, if they were real. if they were real archaeologists, scientists would be screaming from the roof tops. if they found such things they'd never have any funding issues ever again. and, as has been said irrespective of any religious or political pressure this would have got out into the main stream, just look at all the occasions throughout history where science has fought against the powers that be, in the face of death even, just to ensure ignorance does not persist.

but again, you can think what ever you want, and i don't mean to sound like i'm being aggressive or patronising or anything.

The Ancient Egyptians never died out, they were conquered first by the Persians and were ruled for over 100 years then conquered once more by the Romans which lasted for 1000 years until eventually over time the language and religious beliefs were lost and eventually became an Islamic nation due to the spread of Islam throughout the Middle-East. The Ancient Egyptians are the same modern day Egyptians.

You missed the Greeks in between.

On topic, I don't really get why 'the powers that be' would want to stop us knowing about giants in the past. Anything to distract us from the realisation that most of our politicians are incompetent and/or corrupt would normally be welcomed by most governments. I don't really get what they'd stand to lose by letting us know 'the truth'.

Recent gas exploration activity in the south east region of the Arabian desert uncovered a skeletal remains of a human of phenomenal size. This region of the Arabian desert is called the Empty Quarter, or in Arabic, 'Rab-Ul-Khalee'. The discovery was made by the Aramco Exploration team. As God states in the Quran that He had created people of phenomenal size the like of which He has not created since. These were the people of Aad where Prophet Hud was sent. They were very tall, big, and very powerful, such that they could put their arms around a tree trunk and uproot it. Later these people, who were given all the power, turned against God and the Prophet and transgressed beyond all boundaries set by God. As a result they were destroyed.

Ulema's of Saudi Arabia believe these to be the remains of the people of Aad. Saudi Military has secured the whole area and no one is allowed to enter except the ARAMCO personnel. It has been kept in secrecy, but a military helicopter took some pictures from the air and one of the pictures leaked out into the internet in Saudi Arabia. See the attachment and note the size of the two men standing in the picture in comparison to the size of the skeleton !!

thats some fella

edit: i didnt realise they were serious about this stuff. Im going to watch the rest of the video and look into this

i also haven't a clue where you could possibly get the idea that the ancient egyptians were "a race far superior to any that ever lived - yet". okay, they were a pretty damn clever civilization, built some huge things, had some nice jewelry, but so did many other peoples around the world. what they had that enabled them to be rather prolific on the building front was man power, and lots of it, a decent climate that allowed for artifacts to preserve through time, rather handy positioning in the world to get easy access to some impressively extensive trade routes (not that they ran the routes), a handy huge, regularly flooding river which turned the desert into perfect farm land, and maniacal leaders intent of imposing their assumed godly status upon the population.

how could they be "superior to any [civilization] that ever lived yet" if they didn't have sewerage, didn't have planes, didn't have telephones, didn't have an all encompassing education system, didn't have digital watches? hell, they didn't even have a practical system of writing(i know they had hieroglyphics, which itself sporned the more practical coptic, but still compared to this, wonderfully simplistic, versatile, comprehensive alphabet, it was far from superior).

don't get me wrong, i think they were impressive, but to say they are superior to every other civilization ever is quite naive.

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear.

I should have said one of the greatest civilisations at that point in time during their dynasty. Take the pyramids for example; to this day they still don't know for certain how they were constructed. The secret chambers inside the pyramids aligning the stars. Huge dead flat granite blocks installed with such precision that even modern day machinery would struggle complete this task. There's a long list of achievements.

So, that's what I meant by a race far superior to any that ever lived.

And Moose, I am dismissive because it makes no sense and I have yet to see any decent proof. I'm going to bed now, but I can't find solid proof any of these museums actually have these bones.

Humboldt's website has records for a lot of other things, but not these giant bones.I couldn't see a Ica website.The Gold Museum in Peru... I couldn't find it on the website but it didn't seem to have much. Then there's history of fakes in a museum that may or not be the one you referenced: http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/09/0109connguide.html.

I am open minded, but none of the "proof" supplied convinces me in the slightest. I believe, like several others have said, that you can see someone bigger and tell someone and before you know it the story has spread to the 50 foot woman fighting godzilla. I have yet to see any believeable and reliable proof though, until then... I don't buy it.

The Ancient Egyptians never died out, they were conquered first by the Persians and were ruled for over 100 years then conquered once more by the Romans which lasted for 1000 years until eventually over time the language and religious beliefs were lost and eventually became an Islamic nation due to the spread of Islam throughout the Middle-East. The Ancient Egyptians are the same modern day Egyptians.

You missed the Greeks in between.

On topic, I don't really get why 'the powers that be' would want to stop us knowing about giants in the past. Anything to distract us from the realisation that most of our politicians are incompetent and/or corrupt would normally be welcomed by most governments. I don't really get what they'd stand to lose by letting us know 'the truth'.

Maybe it's the governments that are preventing the knowledge spreading?

As I said to mac_d, Steven Quayle does explain it his video. He's done the research so I've no reason to dis-believe him.

I should have said one of the greatest civilisations at that point in time during their dynasty. Take the pyramids for example; to this day they still don't know for certain how they were constructed. The secret chambers inside the pyramids aligning the stars. Huge dead flat granite blocks installed with such precision that even modern day machinery would struggle complete this task. There's a long list of achievements.

So, that's what I meant by a race far superior to any that ever lived.

well that definitely makes a bunch more sense.

however, they weren't quite as extraordinarily more advanced than everyone else for the time as you may think. there were a number of other civilizations who achieved equally impressive, and often unimaginable, feats. they have, however, had by far the most publicity over the years since, for various reasons, mainly that their stuff's easily accessible to the world and looks nice. but that's not to belittle their achievements which are both impressive and numerous.

there remains, however, no reason why any... actually i'll reword that, there is no reason why all governments would hide such finds. some may conceivably, for various political/religious reason hide such things. but all wouldn't, even if such things were true, there'd have been no benefit hiding their existence if giants were as prevalent as he states, through time everyone would've known anyway. not least that to expose it now wouldn't exactly rock the foundations of society.

your man quayle fits into the explanation i gave earlier, he's merely attention seeking, trying to write and sell books. he may have done "research" but all he's done is gone around looking for stories that corroborate, or can be twisted to corroborate, his conclusion. not, as scientific research should be done, to derive his conclusion from the evidence, from the research at hand.

you say you've "no reason to dis-believe him", if you listen to the things he is claiming, the way he twists various parabolic stories into being supposedly historic citations of literal, real life events; the way he cites as proofs numerous incidents that have been dis-proved; the way he doesn't actually address the explanations of those skeptical to his stance through rational arguments, but merely derides their positions as farcical by accusing them of being scared of facing the truth; the way he clearly either has no concept of, or conveniently(purposefully) ignores, the fact that the term "giant" when attributed to some historical figure, doesn't necessarily literally mean some huge dude. just think how we use the term "a giant of a man" nowadays.

look, just listen to that first link again, the radio show, he's talking nonsense. he's either completely delusional, or purposefully(maliciously) miss-interpreting various, disparate historical references so that he can sell his book. he's stating that "x, y and z" are fact based off of his research, however the only citation he gives is from texts intended to be taken as parable, to serve a purpose, to tell a story, to either teach people a valuable lesson, or basically to be political spin.

the so called proofs, images of the skeletons are faked, they are well knows hoaxes made for a photography competition.

quayle says in this interview/radio show thing that "giants" made up 50% of the population, and we're only talking about back in roman times. why then, do we have literally millions of "normal" skeletons from that period, yet no, or even if he's correct, only 3 or 4 "giant" skeletons. they would be all over the bleeding place, they'd have been common knowledge for thousands of years.

there are many, many reasons to dis-believe quayle, all you have to do is listen to the words spewing from the hole in the middle of his face.

for god sake, he appears to believe every "conspiracy theory" stance. he states many times literal belief of the christian bible, all the random things that are in there to teach, not to be historical reference, yet he also claims belief in aliens coming down here in ufo's and "zapping" people(he actually says this!). these two positions are mutually exclusive, he contradicts himself. he uses the fact that hitler got the ss to go around chasing various acult artifacts and strories as a back up for him doing the same! "if hitler did it, it must be right", i admit, that is paraphrasing him, but this is a position, an argument he pursues for quite a while.

you should not believe the man because he clearly has no integrity.

i explained this earlier, and after listening to the link, i'm not just more convinced of my position, but i'm angry, very angry, at your man quayle. he's a clever man, but he's praying on the week, easily led members of society to make as much money as he possibly can out of his books. i would be willing to bet my life that he either does not believe a single word of this tripe he's peddling, or that has at some point been prescribed some fairly heavy duty anti-psychotics but isn't taking them anymore.

you can believe him if you want, just remember that he probably thinks elvis is still alive and kicking, just that he was whisked away by some aliens wanting to kick start rock and roll back on their home planet.

I should have said one of the greatest civilisations at that point in time during their dynasty. Take the pyramids for example; to this day they still don't know for certain how they were constructed. The secret chambers inside the pyramids aligning the stars. Huge dead flat granite blocks installed with such precision that even modern day machinery would struggle complete this task. There's a long list of achievements.

So, that's what I meant by a race far superior to any that ever lived.

well that definitely makes a bunch more sense.

however, they weren't quite as extraordinarily more advanced than everyone else for the time as you may think. there were a number of other civilizations who achieved equally impressive, and often unimaginable, feats. they have, however, had by far the most publicity over the years since, for various reasons, mainly that their stuff's easily accessible to the world and looks nice. but that's not to belittle their achievements which are both impressive and numerous.

there remains, however, no reason why any... actually i'll reword that, there is no reason why all governments would hide such finds. some may conceivably, for various political/religious reason hide such things. but all wouldn't, even if such things were true, there'd have been no benefit hiding their existence if giants were as prevalent as he states, through time everyone would've known anyway. not least that to expose it now wouldn't exactly rock the foundations of society.

your man quayle fits into the explanation i gave earlier, he's merely attention seeking, trying to write and sell books. he may have done "research" but all he's done is gone around looking for stories that corroborate, or can be twisted to corroborate, his conclusion. not, as scientific research should be done, to derive his conclusion from the evidence, from the research at hand.

you say you've "no reason to dis-believe him", if you listen to the things he is claiming, the way he twists various parabolic stories into being supposedly historic citations of literal, real life events; the way he cites as proofs numerous incidents that have been dis-proved; the way he doesn't actually address the explanations of those skeptical to his stance through rational arguments, but merely derides their positions as farcical by accusing them of being scared of facing the truth; the way he clearly either has no concept of, or conveniently(purposefully) ignores, the fact that the term "giant" when attributed to some historical figure, doesn't necessarily literally mean some huge dude. just think how we use the term "a giant of a man" nowadays.

look, just listen to that first link again, the radio show, he's talking nonsense. he's either completely delusional, or purposefully(maliciously) miss-interpreting various, disparate historical references so that he can sell his book. he's stating that "x, y and z" are fact based off of his research, however the only citation he gives is from texts intended to be taken as parable, to serve a purpose, to tell a story, to either teach people a valuable lesson, or basically to be political spin.

the so called proofs, images of the skeletons are faked, they are well knows hoaxes made for a photography competition.

quayle says in this interview/radio show thing that "giants" made up 50% of the population, and we're only talking about back in roman times. why then, do we have literally millions of "normal" skeletons from that period, yet no, or even if he's correct, only 3 or 4 "giant" skeletons. they would be all over the bleeding place, they'd have been common knowledge for thousands of years.

there are many, many reasons to dis-believe quayle, all you have to do is listen to the words spewing from the hole in the middle of his face.

for god sake, he appears to believe every "conspiracy theory" stance. he states many times literal belief of the christian bible, all the random things that are in there to teach, not to be historical reference, yet he also claims belief in aliens coming down here in ufo's and "zapping" people(he actually says this!). these two positions are mutually exclusive, he contradicts himself. he uses the fact that hitler got the ss to go around chasing various acult artifacts and strories as a back up for him doing the same! "if hitler did it, it must be right", i admit, that is paraphrasing him, but this is a position, an argument he pursues for quite a while.

you should not believe the man because he clearly has no integrity.

i explained this earlier, and after listening to the link, i'm not just more convinced of my position, but i'm angry, very angry, at your man quayle. he's a clever man, but he's praying on the week, easily led members of society to make as much money as he possibly can out of his books. i would be willing to bet my life that he either does not believe a single word of this tripe he's peddling, or that has at some point been prescribed some fairly heavy duty anti-psychotics but isn't taking them anymore.

you can believe him if you want, just remember that he probably thinks elvis is still alive and kicking, just that he was whisked away by some aliens wanting to kick start rock and roll back on their home planet.

i do however hope it didn't come across as patronising or overbearing or anything, or sounding like i think i'm some sort of know-it-all. despite my best efforts, i often do, i've not always got the best way with words.

you can believe him if you want, just remember that he probably thinks elvis is still alive and kicking, just that he was whisked away by some aliens wanting to kick start rock and roll back on their home planet.

He is. He works in the chip shop down the road.

Listen, for one, he aint 'my man'. I don't know him anymore than you do; and I certainaly don't presrcibe to EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth. It's obvious he could never know how many of these giants roamed the earth. He's cleary being over generous with his estimations.

Anyways, believe what you want you are free to do so. But no one has proved that there HASN'T been giant any more than people proving that they WERE.

So, still open for debate in my eyes. Like I said, if you don't believe it, fine.Which is what I said in my opening post.

(Edited for spelling)

Incidently, StevenQuayle.com was up on the net yesterday and for months before and now it's not. Read whatever you want in that.

Wow, I have tried to examine this subject with an open mind, but I can't find anything to support the concept of a race of giants. I checked out the museums mentioned, and the "large" skulls at the Ica Museum in Mexico represent individuals whose skulls were bound at birth and grew up deformed. If they were "giants", then they were a completely separate race to the other races of giants.

But really, if I was to even begin to accept this theory, I ask for proof, hard proof, hard data or something more tangible than references to old biblical passages. I also ask hard questions that require a logical explanation or the entire theory would fall apart. For instance, if there was a civilization of giants, where are the buildings they must have constructed, where are the buildings and stairs sized for their proportions? And if they constructed such things as the Pyramids, why are most interior passages barely large enough for a normal human, but would be impassible for a giant? And I certainly do not accept the concept of any government cover up. When dinosaur bones started popping up and became a hobby for adventurers and collectors, why didn't the most powerful organization on the globe at the time, the Roman Catholic Church and Vatican not make a serious effort to suppress and cover up these discoveries? And all of a sudden when human giant remains are found all nature of governments rush to cover it up? Because the discovery of dinosaur bones attacked the very core of some religious beliefs and definitely ran contrary to church teachings. They sure suppressed evolution and astronomy because it destroyed the concept of a geocentric universe. That doesn't make sense, if the skeleton of a giant was found somewhere, the people of that nation would put it on display, bragging about the size of their ancestors. As soon as dinosaur bones were discovered they immediately hit the museum circuit just because they were big, and therefore novel. Geez, if I ever found one I'd be a rich man overnight.

I understand evolution and the forces that produce change. I know why Megalodon existed and was so big, what influence they had on others (whales fled to the cold water to escape them, and have lived there ever since), and the cause for their demise. I know that millions of years ago the oxygen level was so high that animals could grow huge, and yes, we did have dragonflies four feet across the wingtips. But they could get oxygen very easily to all body parts, something not possible with our current level of oxygen and their physiology. But for the period of time that we assume the giants lived and prospered, the oxygen wasn't much more than the present, and I see no logical reason why they would have grown so large. Animals evolve size for very good reasons, there is no substantiation for giants.

Any of you ever visit an old castle or view armor from the middle ages? Did you ever note that the armor, built for nobles and warriors, was on average for a man about 5 foot 6 inches? And these were from the warrior classes, the men who ate well and had every reason to be the big man in the village. But if you took a man of that era and put him alongside one of these... instant giant.

So please, offer proof, not assumptions or vague references to old religious passages. My mind is not closed, but I require something more compelling.

I also consider the story of David versus Goliath as a textbook example of using long range weapons against a stronger opponent, all good military sense.

Listen, for one, he aint 'my man'. I don't know him anymore than you do; and I certainaly don't presrcibe to EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth. It's obvious he could never know how many of these giants roamed the earth. He's cleary being over generous with his estimations.

Anyways, believe what you want you are free to do so. But no one has proved that there HASN'T been giant any more than people proving that they WERE.

So, still open for debate in my eyes. Like I said, if you don't believe it, fine.Which is what I said in my opening post.

(Edited for spelling)

Incidently, StevenQuayle.com was up on the net yesterday and for months before and now it's not. Read whatever you want in that.

sorry, i wasn't literally meaning that he was "your" man, it's a figure of speech i picked up in glasgow.

your argument there doesn't stand up, the onus always has to be on proving that something exists. quite simply this is because you can never prove that something doesn't exist, it could always have been "missed" by those trying to find out. you can never prove that unicorns don't exist, yet, despite the numerous stories and myths and arguably ambiguous archaeological finds, the logical, sane(if you will) position is not to assume that they must therefore exist.

and like i too said in my first post, you can believe anything you want. however, in light of seeing another post in which you asked why planets are round, i would still stick by my unintentionally patronising sounding bit of advice to think, and use logical reasoning to question things.

that is quite interesting about his site going down though. it was also interesting that adding comments to that first link, of the radio show, on you tube had been turned off.

(by the way, i'm really not meaning to sound harsh or anything, this not actually talking in person malarkey makes it difficult to read peoples intonation, and my way with words isn't always the best anyway. sorry if i have come across not as intended)

Listen, for one, he aint 'my man'. I don't know him anymore than you do; and I certainaly don't presrcibe to EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth. It's obvious he could never know how many of these giants roamed the earth. He's cleary being over generous with his estimations.

Anyways, believe what you want you are free to do so. But no one has proved that there HASN'T been giant any more than people proving that they WERE.

So, still open for debate in my eyes. Like I said, if you don't believe it, fine.Which is what I said in my opening post.

(Edited for spelling)

Incidently, StevenQuayle.com was up on the net yesterday and for months before and now it's not. Read whatever you want in that.

sorry, i wasn't literally meaning that he was "your" man, it's a figure of speech i picked up in glasgow.

your argument there doesn't stand up, the onus always has to be on proving that something exists. quite simply this is because you can never prove that something doesn't exist, it could always have been "missed" by those trying to find out. you can never prove that unicorns don't exist, yet, despite the numerous stories and myths and arguably ambiguous archaeological finds, the logical, sane(if you will) position is not to assume that they must therefore exist.

and like i too said in my first post, you can believe anything you want. however, in light of seeing another post in which you asked why planets are round, i would still stick by my unintentionally patronising sounding bit of advice to think, and use logical reasoning to question things.

that is quite interesting about his site going down though. it was also interesting that adding comments to that first link, of the radio show, on you tube had been turned off.

(by the way, i'm really not meaning to sound harsh or anything, this not actually talking in person malarkey makes it difficult to read peoples intonation, and my way with words isn't always the best anyway. sorry if i have come across not as intended)

Jeeze, that IS a bit harsh. Do you know everything? Look, I didn't know the answer to why planets are round so I googled it and got the answer. Where's the harm in that?

I could ask you bunch of questions and I guarentee you would not know the answer to them; would you use logical reasong then?

If you don't know about something, you don't know - or you find out.

Anyways this is a public forum and dabate is what drives it, so, no worries.

I'm sorry, I read all the articles and most dealt with individuals around 7 feet tall. For the remainder, most were lone exceptions, meaning they might have been individuals with growth problems. One even got into "the bones crumbled when touched, and no longer exist", which I dismissed. As for the rest, I find it more than difficult to believe that any museum or research institute that owned any of them would not be very famous by now. And they are not famous, and the only reason I can deduce is that they did not prove to be genuine or valid.

Of note is the fact that many articles were dated around 1880 to 1910, a period marked by the famous "Bone Wars" by Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh, and their exploits were regular fare in newspapers. At that time, getting famous by finding huge bones was how one got under the sensationalist spotlight, currently practiced by lady gaga. Fortunately, their findings and fossils still remain, and validate their work. So where are the bones of giants?

The Ancient Egyptians never died out, they were conquered first by the Persians and were ruled for over 100 years then conquered once more by the Romans which lasted for 1000 years until eventually over time the language and religious beliefs were lost and eventually became an Islamic nation due to the spread of Islam throughout the Middle-East. The Ancient Egyptians are the same modern day Egyptians.

You missed the Greeks in between.

It was a very brief summary There was also the Libyan, Nubians, Assyrians and Byzantine Empires. Also the French and British occupied Egypt for a while too.